MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804336932 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy054.024

ADHERENCE TO THE PECARN PEDIATRIC HEAD INJURY RULE IN TWO CANADIAN EMERGENCY SETTINGS

2018· article· en· W2804336932 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin Gariépy, Jocelyn Gravel, Stéphane Turcotte, France Légaré, Edward R. Melnick, Erik P. Hess, Holly O. Witteman, Lania Lelaidier-Hould, Catherine Truchon, Louise Sauvé, Patrick Plante, Nathalie Lesage, Patrick Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalThe Quebec Population Health Research NetworkCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesInstitut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services SociauxUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead injuryHead traumaEmergency departmentPediatric traumaPediatricsTrauma centerMedical recordEmergency medicineRetrospective cohort studyPoison controlInjury preventionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Head computerized tomography (CT) increases the risk of cancer in children and should be carefully prescribed to paediatric patients with head injury. The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Network (PECARN) validated a rule to identify children at risk of a clinically important traumatic brain injury (TBI) needing a head CT. OBJECTIVES The objective was to evaluate adherence to the PECARN rule as a function of CT overuse (defined as a prescribed CT when not recommended by the rule) and underuse rates (no CT performed when recommended) in two Canadian emergency departments (EDs). DESIGN/METHODS We conducted a retrospective chart review of children under 17 years of age seen in 2016 in a paediatric Level I (site 1) and a general Level II (site 2) trauma center. We reviewed charts to determine the appropriateness of head CT use according to the PECARN rule in a random subset of children presenting with a head trauma. Mandatory inclusion criteria were (1) that the head trauma occurred in the 24 hours prior to arrival to the ED, (2) a GCS over 13 and (3) and at least one sign or symptom of minor TBI. Patients with a special condition that could have influenced the decision to order a head CT were automatically excluded. When a patient did not receive a head CT when recommended by the rule, we reviewed medical records to determine if the patient has returned to the ED after his discharge within the next 30 days. RESULTS 1546 eligible patients younger than 17 years consulted during the study period. Of the 203 randomly selected cases per setting, 16 (7.9%) and 24 (12%) respectively from sites 1 and 2 had a head CT performed. For the younger group (< 2), both overuse and underuse rates were below 3%. For the older group, overuse rates were higher in site 2 (9.3% (95%CI:4.8–17%) vs. 1.2% (95%CI:0.2–6.5%) (P=.03)) and there was no difference in underuse rates (22% (95%CI:6.3–55%) vs 39% (95%CI:18–65%) (P=.65)). For children who did not receive a head CT when recommended, none returned to the ED for a related complication. CONCLUSION Overall, even if there may be slightly more overuse of head CTs in the Level II trauma center, results showed an excellent agreement with the PECARN rule when CT was not recommended. However, results also showed a deviation when CT was recommended, where a higher portion of patients than expected did not receive a head CT. Reasons to explain this behaviour will need further exploration.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207